nice little fight going on atm  |
|
|
|
das war ein spaßvogel der 10.000 bitcoins immer wieder hin und her geschickt hat. sehr wahrscheinlich um ein statement für grössere blocks zu hinterlassen. |
|
|
|
|
ich denke etherum wird in dem ganzen trubel aktuell als alternative zum bitcoin gesehen, quasi als sicherer hafen um sein geld zu parken solange soviel unruhe herrscht. desweiteren habe ich gerüchte vernommen wonach bei einem eventuellen classic-hardfork einige der core-entwickler bitcoin verlassen würden in richtung eth. das wäre dann geballte developer-power sozusagen.
|
|
|
|
...
Or in your business language: We can give away our product for free, said no successful business ever.
... Depends on what you mean by "for free" :- There's Google... you pay google by advertisement maybe we can put some advertisements on every TXs  "sponsored by Coca-Cola" Google didn't start out by charging for searches, email, etc. Had zero ad revenues because zero ads. I guess Google should have started out by charging for its services, would have been a multi-gazillion-dollar co. by now. Part of why Google is so popular is because it did absolutely zero ads during their first startup, and this lead to everyone using it to recommend Google over other search engines, as there were barely any ads. And it's pretty much the same way now. The ads are very non-intrusive, and this is what is making them so much money. I think Google migght only be the size of Bing or Yahoo if they started with ads, and there would most likely also be a more distributed market share. the important part is: is google free in terms of no revenue? answer is: no. google obv get revenue. no revenue = no service. as simple as that. |
|
|
|
Das stimmt natürlich nur, wenn alle streng objektiv handeln. Dann wären auch keinerlei Kursmanipulationen mehr möglich, da jeder seinen Preis macht und sich nicht von den anderen Trades beeinflussen lässt. Die Praxis sieht allerdings anders aus.
nehmen wir mal an es gibt kursmanipulationen und der bitcoin schwankt fröhlich durch die gegend und jetzt addieren wir täglich einen käufer welcher jeden tag sagen wir mal 10.000 coins aufkauft, dann wirst du logischerweise einen effekt im kurs erkennen können (und zwar mit ziemlicher sicherheit nach oben ) nur weil es herdentrieb und maipulationen etc gibt bedeutet das noch lange nicht das ein kauf den kurs nicht nach oben treibt bzw ein verkauf den kurs nicht (wenn auch marginal) mach unten treibt. die grosse unbekannte ist eben wieviel tatsächlich pro tag netto verkauft/gekauft wird und wie in dem zusammenhang die geminten coins stehen. |
|
|
|
...
Or in your business language: We can give away our product for free, said no successful business ever.
... Depends on what you mean by "for free" :- There's Google... you pay google by advertisement maybe we can put some advertisements on every TXs "sponsored by Coca-Cola" |
|
|
|
It is the [use cost] that need to be increased!
Said no successful business in a competitive market anywhere. Longterm Bitcoin has to gather enough fees to survive, without fees no miners. Or in your business language: We can give away our product for free, said no successful business ever. by long term you mean a couple of years from now ? or when the block reward is almost zero ? we have to define what is long term first then we can discuss what is right. longterm i mean when blockreward is zero, yes. nevertheless we should already be aware of that fees are not something "evil" but overall necessary. its a balance between allowing 0-fee transactions to process, while still having enough pressure to have some fees paid. |
|
|
|
It is the [use cost] that need to be increased!
Said no successful business in a competitive market anywhere. Longterm Bitcoin has to gather enough fees to survive, without fees no miners. Or in your business language: We can give away our product for free, said no successful business ever. edit: the fees will longterm lead 1:1 to Bitcoins security. the higher the gathered fees the higher the security of the network. |
|
|
|
|
für den kurs ist relevant wieviel netto gekauft/verkauft und das ist logischerweise nur ein bruchteil dessen was übrigbleibt nach dem ganzen trading etc. daher kann es durchaus sein das diese nur 3600 coins pro tag einen spürbaren unterschied machen in der täglichen +/- rechnung.
bedenkt man dann noch das ganze fake volumen in china (was sie ja sogar teilweise selbst zugegeben haben)...
|
|
|
|
|
hoffen wir mal das es dabei bleibt. bisher hört man viel widersprüchliches aus dem lager der miner.
|
|
|
|
270$ ist schon ziemlich realistisch sollte sich die HF ergeben und zusätzlich eventuell sogar noch eine aufteilung innerhalb des core teams etc etc dann hätten wir innerhalb kürzester zeit 2 oder eventuell auch 3 verschiedene bitcoins. da sind 270$ und tiefer ganz schnell erreicht. |
|
|
|
|
rumor says that if classic succeeds big parts of core developers will switch to eth
|
|
|
|
This descending triangle closes in few hours. Dumpage incoming
 |
|
|
|
The more important Bitcoins becomes, the more likely a congestion failure will be absent a scaling solution. Let's assume half the transactions are either not important or urgent. Then what happens if that number grows by a factor of five? This is not unprecedented. There is no way the price will sustainably go up without attracting new users EXPONENTIALLY and the network won't be able to handle them no matter how much in fees they pay.
Let's use a hypothetical example: Imagine that the Chinese government announces that they will soon close the loophole that allows their citizens to avoid capital controls via crypto. This could cause a mad rush to the exits, particularly if the economic conditions inside China deteriorate. If one tenth of one percent of the Chinese try to get their money out through bitcoin, that's (1,600,000,000)X(0.001)=1,600,000 so at only one transaction each, we're looking at over four times the total daily network capacity IN ADDITION TO all the other traffic. That's just one example. I can think of dozens more. Hyperinflation in a third world country. another Cypress type banking crisis. A terrorist attack on the Bank of International Settlements. SWIFT or ACH getting hacked. etc.
The mempool has already been over 10MB for two days straight. We are looking at a permanent and growing backlog of transactions.
that doesn't contradict my point. you are right if a big flush of TXs comes their will be a BIG mempool and essentially alot of TXs would have to switch to another coin. nevertheless its not a "congestion" as this basically paints a picture where NO TXs AT ALL will be processed ands thats bullshit. if you have 1.6Mio TXs and only 200.000 are fitting on the blockchain then a market will occur and the most important 200.000 will be processed. i know you can argue that that would be not a good situation for Bitcoin OK, but its not that the newtwork stops processing TXs. i hope it gets clearer now. Those people switching to another coin may never switch back. ≠ congestion failure |
|
|
|
The more important Bitcoins becomes, the more likely a congestion failure will be absent a scaling solution. Let's assume half the transactions are either not important or urgent. Then what happens if that number grows by a factor of five? This is not unprecedented. There is no way the price will sustainably go up without attracting new users EXPONENTIALLY and the network won't be able to handle them no matter how much in fees they pay.
Let's use a hypothetical example: Imagine that the Chinese government announces that they will soon close the loophole that allows their citizens to avoid capital controls via crypto. This could cause a mad rush to the exits, particularly if the economic conditions inside China deteriorate. If one tenth of one percent of the Chinese try to get their money out through bitcoin, that's (1,600,000,000)X(0.001)=1,600,000 so at only one transaction each, we're looking at over four times the total daily network capacity IN ADDITION TO all the other traffic. That's just one example. I can think of dozens more. Hyperinflation in a third world country. another Cypress type banking crisis. A terrorist attack on the Bank of International Settlements. SWIFT or ACH getting hacked. etc.
The mempool has already been over 10MB for two days straight. We are looking at a permanent and growing backlog of transactions.
that doesn't contradict my point. you are right if a big flush of TXs comes their will be a BIG mempool and essentially alot of TXs would have to switch to another coin. nevertheless its not a "congestion" as this basically paints a picture where NO TXs AT ALL will be processed ands thats bullshit. if you have 1.6Mio TXs and only 200.000 are fitting on the blockchain then a market will occur and the most important 200.000 will be processed. i know you can argue that that would be not a good situation for Bitcoin OK, but its not that the newtwork stops processing TXs. i hope it gets clearer now. |
|
|
|
The answer to your question of attacking one of the chains seems to be valid, still.
I don't think so... When a fork is proposed, like XT or Classic (with 75% trigger and a few weeks of grace period between the trigger and the switch to new rules), I think that: * Before the fork, holders should pray that it resolves neatly and quickly as a non-event, and keep quiet or voice their preferences quietly, so that it does not upset the price; * If the proposal gains some support, but neither reaches 75% nor drops back to zero, and it looks like the impasse may continue for a while, they may want to speak out for one outcome, to help break the impasse -- but that may make things worse if they themselves cant agree on which side to support. They may want to sell while the price is still OK, justin case; but that may cause the price to crash. Or they may choose to bet on the price recovering later, and keep holding. * If the proposal gets little suport and seems to be a sure fail, the holders shoul shout it down. * If the proposal gets 51% and keeps increasing, the holders should cheer it along. * If the proposal gets the required support and triggers, the holders should upgrade their clients accept it, and do what they can to convince the remaining miners and players to accept it too. * If the change has triggered, but at the end of the grace period there is still a non-negligible fraction of the miners that refuse to accep it, then the holders should try to convince the exchanges and other services to boycott the minority chain and refuse its coins, and convince the miners to sabotage the minority chain. When a minority can veto, we have what amounts to a game of "chicken". In the game of chicken, the side perceived to be the craziest and most hell-bent on winning at any cost (including their own destruction) is the side that wins. This right now is the side of the smallblockers, unfortunately. That's why I think this will take a while to play out, longer in fact than it will take to fill the blocks and hike fees. Possibly long enough to get a network congestion failure. There won't be a "congestion failure". If blocks are full a order of importance builds itself, those TXs that are more important are paying more and those that are not important are paying less/nothing. You dont have to agree with this fee market evolving and its perfectly fine to be in the bigblockers-camp, but this "congestion failure" is just bullshit cause it paints a situation that will never occur. |
|
|
|
What percentage of the mining pool is represented by "Haobtc, OKCoin, Bitmain, Bither, LIGHTNINGASIC" ?
The context was Chinese mining pools. With the list above and F2Pool which already made a deal with core a couple days ago(evidence provided earlier)... I see BTCC and BW mining missing which is ~20% global hash rate or around 2/3rds of Chinese mining pools indicating they are sticking with core(If we are to believe the sources) and the remaining Chinese pools having an unknown position. F2P deal with Core? You mean 2Mb in April 2017? Do you know what they actually meant when they said that, knowing that Classic was going ahead in a timeframe a fraction of that? better start reading the whole fckn conversation. wang clearly states that he is in favor of 3months before any softfork and he wants at least one year before any hardfork. that pretty much puts classic to the grave. |
|
|
|
So now that there's rumblings of Blockstream "capitulating" with an empty promise for 2017... are you guise gonna let me sell some above $450 for the 3rd time in 2 months??
Not surprised that cripplecoiners can't discern the difference between Jonathan Toomim and his stoner brother Michael... oh wait... it's just a smear tactic by association... gotcha.
Software coming out at the end of the month... the DDoS'ing should be pretty epic!
Should also be interesting to see what Loaded has to say tomorrow, if he says anything at all.
Choo Choo Gentlemen. To 450 and slightly beyond!
no "empty promise" if you release the HF now and it activates it self at 01-01-2017 |
|
|
|
I cut-and-paste posted this here when it came out two days ago. @Chunky Is the war is over?? And I read it then, I just don't see how this is a retraction of the support for Bitcoin Classic they gave the same day. true, he doesnt mention classic. i read it as an endorsement to core but i obv could be wrong. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
